State v. Nelson, 2016 Ohio 5344

Probation officer Alex Boyd and two colleagues visited a multi-story home to check on Shawn Nelson, a felony probationer who had signed a probation rule consenting to searches of his person and residence.
Officers had an anonymous tip of drug dealing at the house and found two spent shell casings outside on an earlier visit.
On the second visit, Shawn answered after the officers knocked; he told them he slept in the living room and that no one else was present.
Officer Mike Schad went upstairs to a wide-open third-floor common area after hearing movement; a bedroom off that room was separated only by a hanging blanket.
Schad called out, ordered the occupant (Leonard Nelson) to come out, then briefly poked his head into the bedroom for safety; he immediately observed a firearm and a bag of marijuana in plain view.
Leonard was charged with drug offenses, moved to suppress the evidence, the trial court granted suppression, and the state appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Shawn's probation consent justified warrantless entry of the open third-floor common area	Probation consent and R.C. 2951.02 allowed search of the residence and other property Shawn had permission to use; officers had reasonable grounds (tip + shell casings)	Leonard argued Shawn lacked actual or apparent authority over the third floor and thus could not consent to its search	Court: Shawn’s apparent authority was reasonable because the stairway and third-floor common area were open; officers lawfully went upstairs
Whether brief intrusion into bedroom behind blanket violated Fourth Amendment or was justified by officer-safety; whether items seen were admissible under plain-view	State: even if bedroom was private, officer safety (probationer on felony probation for a weapon, prior shell casings, anonymous tip, and Shawn’s statement no one else was present) justified limited sweep; evidence in plain view	Leonard: a cotenant cannot consent to search of another’s private bedroom; the bedroom was a private area and intrusion was unconstitutional	Court: protective-sweep principles (Buie/Terry) allowed a limited safety check; Schad’s brief peek was reasonable; contraband observed in plain view was admissible

United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (probable consent by co-occupant/common authority principles)
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (apparent authority objective test)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry)
Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (limited protective sweeps incident to arrest)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (stop-and-frisk articulation of specific-and-articulable-facts standard)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (plain-view seizure framework)
Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (co-occupant consent/risk assumption rationale)
State v. Benton, 82 Ohio St.3d 316 (Ohio recognition of probation-condition searches)
State v. Williams, 55 Ohio St.2d 82 (application of plain-view doctrine under Ohio law)